P.GOPALA SUBRAMANIAM vs VICE CHAIRMAN, A.P.H.B., HYDERABAD

SHRI P. Gopala Subramaniam, appellant herein has come in appeal against the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Commission dated 1.3.1993. The appellant has taken the plea that Andhra Pradesh Housing Board delivered the possession of a house to him after a delay of about 1 1/2 years, beyond the maximum permissible period of 2 years from the date of the agreement in this regard. The main plea taken by the appellant is that the delay in providing the house was because of non-provision electricity and drinking water facility. On this basis the appellant has claimed compensation for delayed possession of the flat beyond January, 1990, and also refund of the enhanced cost of the flat collected without seeking the extension of the two years'' limit from the Government by the A.P. Housing Board.

THE State Commission has passed a detailed order going into each of the pleas taken by the appellant herein. We have gone through this order and also heard the appellant as well as the Counsel for the respondent. It appears that the main reason for the delay in handing over the possession of the flat was non-availability of water and electricity. The plea of the appellant is that the Respondent did not take timely and effective for the arrangement of these facilities to be made available as soon as the flats were ready. His contention is that the necessary amounts were not deposited with the concerned authorities for providing water and city. According to the complainant the flat should have been ready within a maximum period of two years from 18.5.1987, on which date the scheme was notified whereas the possession was handed over on 10.6.1991,-about VA years after the expiry of the two years limit from the date of agreement. On our perusal of the record we find that the Appellant was informed on 27th May, 1991 to take the possession of the flat. He did not take the possession of the flat till 10th June, 1991 because of non-availability of water supply and electricity, although it is admitted that the respondent was able to supply Manjira water facilities by 1.4.1992 and also electricity through some internal arrangement. The plea of the Complainant is that both these facilities were made available after he filed a Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act on 4.3.1991 before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. On a perusal of the case we find that the State Commission, after a careful examination of the facts and circumstances of the case came to the conclusion that the delay in the completion of the house was due to unforeseen circumstances and that the appellant had agreed to pay the difference between the estimated cost and the final cost. As has already been mentioned by us that the main reason for delay in handing over the possession of the flat was that the Hyderabad Metro Water Works Department could not complete the overhead tank feeder and distribution lines which fact had been well explained by the respondent. On their part the respondent had taken the necessary steps including the deposit of the required amounts with the Electricity and Water Authorities. The responsibility for the delay caused by the Electricity and Water Supply Authorities cannot justifiably be placed on the Housing Board, as these authorities were independent of the Board. There could be a deficiency in service and consequently a claim for compensation etc. only if it could be proved convincingly that the respondent was careless and not vigilant enough in taking the required steps for ensuring the availability of these facilities in the flats. That is not the fact in the present case. Hence, we do not find any justification for disagreeing with the order of the State Commission and, therefore, dismiss this appeal without any order as to costs.